Hi Harald > Hmmm I understand but this shouldn't have broken your config as the keyword is > still implemented by the parser (and removed keywords should be detected and > alerted by the init script).
I don't think it has broken my config. The best guess I can do from what I remember is that I had swapped left and right peer in my old config (copied same config file for both sides of the connection) which the old openswan version obviously has tolerated and the new one - correctly - doesn't anymore. But the bug report wasn't about breaking my config but about not to tell me what keyword in my config is obsolete. If you have a running configuration such a message doesn't matter much. But when your configuration is broken such a message adds confusion as you don't know if it's the reason for the break or not. Sorry for beeing misleading there. > For this report should we consider > this a wishlist entry or close it completely (as it seems the original problem > did not have anything to do with the null entry)? I still consider it a bug when a program complains about obsolete keywords and then tell you "null" instead of the name of the keyword. It either should not try to tell you the name at all or - of course more user friendly - tell the correct name. But you are right, severity of the bug rather should have been minor. I'll change it. Regards Uwe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
